He didnt have to.
He followed 7CA precedent. He is correct in that this case is very similar to Friedman.
There are only two fixes for this - gambling on SCOTUS or changing the legislature. SCOTUS will remain a gamble after Kavanaugh is placed until Ginsburg croaks. Assuming we hold the senate this November, which Im not feeling good about.
Or a third - move out of Illinois. If JB wins we will get more state wide restrictions.

He had to, it's his job to follow the Constitution. Just because another court ignored the Constitution and people's rights, doesn't mean he can do the same. Don't defend him, there's no excuse for what he did. He lied and labeled semi automatic rifles made for civilians, machine guns and sawed off shotguns, same as the county is doing. He is an activist judge who could care less about the constitution and people's rights.

Edited by 357, 09 August 2018 - 08:39 AM.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

So, with this "ruling" - does it actually change anything for an individual living in a town inside of Crook, that have owned leftist-defined "assault" weapons for years? Asking for a friend with a CCL that carries an AR pistol w/standard capacity magazines in their vehicle...

I'm probably more "pro-regulation" than most on here...but I do have an issue with the particular argument the judge used.

In their challenge, the plaintiff’s alleged that the ban strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment. The judge, however, wrote, “The Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to possess a type of weapon (such as a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun) that the government would not expect citizens to bring with them when called to serve in the militia.”

Machine guns and sawed off shotguns? No one in Illinois would show up with a machine gun or a sawed off shot gun (less than 18"s) in Illinois because they are already illegal to own in the state.

Outside of shotguns, my assumption is that a huge chunk of people would show up with AR-15's, followed by AK-47's, and some Mini-14's (which are technically not assault weapons).

If the judge wants to argue organized vs unorganized militia, I could understand that. But what he stated makes zero sense. The most common rifle sold today is basically what our military uses (minus full auto)....so...I'm not sure what point the judge is trying to make.

I'm probably more "pro-regulation" than most on here...but I do have an issue with the particular argument the judge used.

In their challenge, the plaintiff’s alleged that the ban strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment. The judge, however, wrote, “The Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to possess a type of weapon (such as a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun) that the government would not expect citizens to bring with them when called to serve in the militia.”

Machine guns and sawed off shotguns? No one in Illinois would show up with a machine gun or a sawed off shot gun (less than 18"s) in Illinois because they are already illegal to own in the state.

Outside of shotguns, my assumption is that a huge chunk of people would show up with AR-15's, followed by AK-47's, and some Mini-14's (which are technically not assault weapons).

If the judge wants to argue organized vs unorganized militia, I could understand that. But what he stated makes zero sense. The most common rifle sold today is basically what our military uses (minus full auto)....so...I'm not sure what point the judge is trying to make.

The opinion by McRenolds in US v Miller contains the following, which the anti's used for decades to mean that you had no RKBA:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

But in fact a short barrel shotgun was extremely effective in the war fought just 20 years prior to this, in trench warfare.

There was simply no one there to argue for the defense in this case. (US v Miller, 1939) This remained the last 2nd Amendment case with a SCOTUS ruling until DC v Heller.

...But in fact a short barrel shotgun was extremely effective in the war fought just 20 years prior to this, in trench warfare....

Unfortunately there is little documentation of the use of shotguns ("trench guns") in WW I. No photographs exist of American soldiers even in the same frame as a shotgun. Historians have conjectured the War Department issued an order to destroy any such evidence, because that's the only way to explain the lack of documentation. There are photos of shotguns, clearly in a trench environment, but only the guns themselves, no people.

The use of "trench guns" was banned by the Hague Convention, which the US did not sign. Nevertheless, when the British and French used them, the Germans did not object. When Americans used them, however, the Germans objected, so it became a politically sensitive topic.